I know a photographer who uses two D3 bodies for EVERYTHING. He has more FX glass in his gear boxes than most stores keep!

We spoke about the D4 a few months ago and while he likes the results, he thinks that for his work, he cannot justify the upgrade. Yes, over time they would pay for themselves, if he swapped out the 3's for 4's but he doesn't HAVE to, so no NEED to.

The moment that prompted this thread was when I attached my 50mm 1.8g to a D600 and took some shots and compared it to my DX camera - there was a big difference between the out of focus elements between the two formats. The FX bokeh just blows my DX out of the water.

This was the very first thing that I noticed when I attached my 24-70mm f/2.8 to my D800 and shot a closeup at f/2.8. I'd been shooting that lens on a D7000 and never knew what I was missing.

bjrichus said:
I know a photographer who uses two D3 bodies for EVERYTHING. He has more FX glass in his gear boxes than most stores keep!

We spoke about the D4 a few months ago and while he likes the results, he thinks that for his work, he cannot justify the upgrade. Yes, over time they would pay for themselves, if he swapped out the 3's for 4's but he doesn't HAVE to, so no NEED to.

I can't argue with him ...

Same thing here. I looked at the D600 and accept for video, could not see the benefit over an older FX body.

With a grip, the D600 was close to $2500.

I picked up a D3 with less than 7500 clicks on it for $2000. I already have a D7000 for video. No brainer.

I am wondering, as you guys have mentioned above about FX being able to produce more shallow DOF and better bokeh and to shoot at high ISO , is it worth enough to spend more than $3,000 just to get those advantages, especially for those who just doing photography as hobby?

If you have the disposable income, and love photography, why not? It also depends on what you want to do with your images.

Although I primarily shoot as a hobby, I also provide images for charities websites and a few clients. Having the ability to shoot high quality images in low light can be very helpful, given those uses. Unless you get caught up in the, I must upgrade every time a new camera comes out, mindset you can keep using that body for years to come.

n0msky said:
I am wondering, as you guys have mentioned above about FX being able to produce more shallow DOF and better bokeh and to shoot at high ISO , is it worth enough to spend more than $3,000 just to get those advantages, especially for those who just doing photography as hobby?

To answer your question, no. When you buy a DX camera such as the D7000 you get about the same complexity as the D600 at (currently) less than half the cost. Buy the D7000, use it, learn the difference in the way it affects you in your fields (i.e. macro, sports, portraits, landscapes cityscapes, nightime etc. then make the decision. If you buy an FX lens to go on that DX body, you can take it with you if you go to an FX body.

As said before, DX is a positive advantage in many fields of photography, not a disadvantage across the board. View the PAD thread to see what cameras people are using and you will see that the difference in quality of the images is more to do with talent and lens than body or sensor size.

Be logical - it is when you lose control of your mind that the cost of this hobby gets way out of hand ;-/

n0msky said:
I am wondering, as you guys have mentioned above about FX being able to produce more shallow DOF and better bokeh and to shoot at high ISO , is it worth enough to spend more than $3,000 just to get those advantages, especially for those who just doing photography as hobby?

When my wife said I could. I tell her that she can get almost all her money back when im gone. I show her some of the threads like i bought this 85mm lens and a year later sold it for more than I paid for it(we need more of this). She just smiles at me and says ok. Thanks for the help everyone. Not sure if I like that kind of a smile though.